May 3, 2011

"Those who believe that women have long been marginalized and suppressed have something to do — propose legislation, stage rallies, withhold labor or sex. Indeed the idea demands that something be done. Those who believe that truth is a matter of correspondence with reality have nothing to do except debate (forever, as it has turned out) with those who believe the opposite."

“Feminists should not … say that patriarchy is social constructed,” as if saying so was a step toward dislodging it. Instead, “Feminists should come out and say patriarchy is wrong” and then say why by pointing to harmful, demeaning practices....

A theory needs an idea, it would seem, or even a set of ideas. Can you have a theory without an idea?

His terminology is confusing and confused.

Patriarchy in mythology means not so much that it's men in charge, but that principles are in charge (instead of whims). I think that whims are not theories, but that principles have to be based on ideas.

So I think he's saying that women need patriarchy.

Matriarchy is rule by whim. And I think he's saying that instead of whims, feminists need to argue that there are clear ideas in place, and that women need to point to them.

Well, I guess I have no idea what he's saying and I doubt if he does, either.

A scientific theory is a description of reality, and as such it cannot be a "call to action" any more that a sunrise can be made out of vinyl.

Science can never tell us why we should do so something, only how to go about doing it.

BJM brought up global warming: the planet is or is not warming due to industrial carbon dioxide emissions but science cannot tell us whether we want try to do anything about it. Just like relativity and quantum mechanics don't tell us who we want to nuke, if anyone--just tells us how to build nuclear weapons if we want.

I'd say that global warming is fiction that was created as a call to action, much like Uncle Tom's Cabin. The latter, of course, accurately represented facts. Global warming is a religion with a non-existent god.

Freeman Hunt wrote: Seems like he's basically saying, "Tapping into thoughts is all well and good, but it's tapping into emotions that gets things done."

Not quite so, in my opinion. First, he's pointing that theories operate at a high level of abstraction and so have no motivating power. They tell you what to expect, not how to act. I run into the problem of abstraction fairly often in my design work. "Innovation" is not a business model, let alone a product. (Alienation, on the other hand, can staff a thousand studies departments.)

Freeman Hunt said: "I saw someone on Facebook post the other day that she was sure she'd see the US roll back all of women's rights during her lifetime to force them to live under a Taliban-like Christian theocracy."

I guess I can't say it's utterly impossible, but on the scale of things to worry about, I think I'll buy a book on surviving a zombie invasion.

BJM wrote: Not necessarily; global warming is a theory that became a call to action.

Hardly a theory since its proposed mechanism contradicts a real theory, namely the laws of thermodynamics. No AGW, or climate change, or climate pollution (the damned thing shifts its nomenclature more often than the Russian secret police) is a best a speculation.

Feminism isn’t an idea, nor is it a theory, nor is it an ideology. Feminism is a nebulosity of wingeing minor complaints, shrewish scoldings and rank hypocrisy. It exists to give women of a certain class a password to the domain of initiates, to give the some of the most puerile emanations of the human mind a molecule-deep patina of respectability, and to guaranty to a new college of vestals a comfortable product-free career as guardians of a scurrilous intellectual fraud called “women’s studies.”

Feminism feasts on picked-over bones of the dead horses and straw men of ancient practices and mythical affronts, while real atrocities are ignored and excused. It leads open-minded young women of the West down dead-end lanes into shadowed forests of frustration, doubt and recrimination, and to the girls of the East, bound in rusty chains of tribal barbarism feminism offers the bright burnished new chains of cultural relativism.

A theory is the proof or disproof of an idea. The issue is not about apples and oranges or the utility -or better, the nutrition of an apple, the issue is about orange blossoms and oranges. If a theory is tested and the test is positive, then you have strong but not complete evidence that an idea is sound.

"Feminism feasts on picked-over bones of the dead horses and straw men of ancient practices and mythical affronts, while real atrocities are ignored and excused. It leads open-minded young women of the West down dead-end lanes into shadowed forests of frustration, doubt and recrimination, and to the girls of the East, bound in rusty chains of tribal barbarism feminism offers the bright burnished new chains of cultural relativism."

Congratulations Quaestor, that's a mighty fine start for an entry in the Bulwer-Lytton writing contest.

"Oh, no, you needn't do that. This isn't a call to action. I just wanted to describe my reality to you and chat a bit."

Your description doesn't tell the fire department to put your house out. Their desire to put out fires is what motivates them, and your desire not to have your house burn motivates you to call them. If you'd set the fire yourself you probably wouldn't call them.

@Quaestor:Hardly a theory since its proposed mechanism contradicts a real theory, namely the laws of thermodynamics.

Tiresome nonsense. Creationists say the same about evolution; they don't understand thermodynamics any more than you do.